Hubert Distributors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 339 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

HUBERT DISTRIBUTERS, INC.
344 NLRB No. 29
339
Hubert Distributors, Inc. and Local 1038, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO.
Case 7–CA–31719(6)
March 7, 2005
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On December 16, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Ira
Sandron issued the attached supplemental decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed an
answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the supplemental decision and the record in light of the
exceptions1 and briefs2 and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions and to adopt
the recommended Order as clarified below.
In the recommended Order, the judge directed the Re-
spondent to “pay the individuals named in the Appendix
the indicated amounts of total gross backpay and other
reimbursable sums for the period from April 15, 1991 to
June 30, 1998, with interest.” As discussed in the
judge’s decision, in November 2000, the Respondent
made a “voluntary payment” directly to certain ware-
house employees in the amount of $423,922.28, as an
offset to accrued backpay. Taking this interim payment
into consideration when preparing the compliance speci-
fication, the Regional Director apportioned the payment,
in the judge’s words, “into principal and interest that
would have been due at the time the payment was made.”
The Regional Director then estimated the portion of the
interim payment attributable to interest by applying to
each quarterly backpay amount the interest rate from the
fourth quarter of 1994, the “median quarter” between the
second quarter of 1991 and the second quarter of 1998
(the backpay period). The judge accepted those determi-
nations.
The Respondent has excepted to both of them. First,
the Respondent contends that the entire amount of its
interim payment should be treated as principal. Second,

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings and conclusions
concerning medical costs and worker’s compensation offsets. We
adopt those findings and conclusions.
2 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
the Respondent contends that, even assuming the pay-
ment should be apportioned between principal and inter-
est, the “median quarter” methodology is inconsistent
with our case law.
We find no merit in the Respondent’s contention that it
was error for the judge to allocate any portion of the in-
terim payment towards interest. Interest began accruing
when the Respondent committed the unfair labor prac-
tices and incurred liability for backpay. Applying the
entire interim payment to principal, as the Respondent
would have us do, would ignore the fact that interest had
already accrued during the 9-year period before that
payment was made. The discriminatees are entitled to
that interest. The judge therefore correctly determined
that it was appropriate to treat the payment as part prin-
cipal and part interest.
As stated above, the Respondent further contends that,
even assuming that it is appropriate to allocate its interim
payment between principal and interest, the judge erred
because the compliance specification, accepted by the
judge, calculated interest on the “interim payment” on
the basis of a “median quarter,” rather than using the
Board’s quarter-by-quarter basis. But the judge’s deci-
sion, properly understood, still allows for interest to be
calculated, on the whole, on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
Indeed, at the hearing, Field Examiner Mark Baines,
who prepared the compliance specification, testified that
his apportionment of the voluntary payment between
principal and interest, based on a median calendar quar-
ter, was provisional, i.e., subject to a final calculation
after the Board issues its decision:
Q. In terms of the interest factors, the interest
amount was included, subject to final calculation
when this matter is concluded based on the regula-
tions. Correct?
A. (Baines) Yes.
Q. Actually, computing, quarterly.
A. (Baines) Yes.
Q. So, what you have done is, you have fixed an
amount, at this point, using a methodology that you
are comfortable with, to arrive at an estimate.
A. (Baines) A reasonable one. Yes. Yes.
Q. Not suggesting that, that is going to be the
number that anybody was bound by, at that point.
A. (Baines) That is true.
Q. In terms of the interest.
A. (Baines) That is true. It is just that—had to
come up with something.
[Tr. 679–680, emphasis added.]
Accordingly, and as the judge implicitly found by ac-
cepting the Regional Director’s determinations, the use
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD340
of the “median quarter” for allocating the Respondent’s
payment between principal and interest was solely for the
purpose of developing the estimate set forth in the com-
pliance specification. The Regional Director assumed
that there would be a need to perform a final, quarter-by-
quarter calculation of interest following the issuance of
this decision.
To the extent that the judge’s recommended order is
unclear regarding this point, we clarify that the Order
imposes a requirement on the Regional Director to calcu-
late the final amounts of backpay, other reimbursable
amounts, and interest due the employees listed in the
compliance specification, including the interest portion
of the Respondent’s voluntary payment, on a quarter-by-
quarter basis, as required by our case law. We recognize
that this final calculation is likely to alter the backpay
amounts listed in the Appendix to the judge’s decision.
Therefore, in adopting the judge’s decision and recom-
mended Order, we do so subject to any alterations in
backpay amounts attributable to the final calculation.
In all other respects, we adopt the judge’s findings and
conclusions.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Hubert Distributors, Inc.,
Pontiac, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall pay the individuals named in the Appendix
the backpay and other reimbursable sums as shown in the
Appendix, subject to the final, quarter-by-quarter calcu-
lation of interest, including the portion of the Respon-
dent’s voluntary payment attributable to interest, as pro-
vided in the Casehandling Manual (Part Three), Compli-
ance, for the period from April 15, 1991 to June 30,
1998, with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), accrued to the date of
payment and minus tax withholding required by law.
Richard F. Czubaj, Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. Laevin Weiner, Esq. (Frank, Haron, Weiner and Navarro), of
Troy, Michigan, for the Respondent.
Judith A. Sale, Esq. (Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Can-
zano, P.C.), of Southfield, Michigan, for the Charging
Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRA SANDRON, Administrative Law Judge. This matter arises
out of a compliance specification and notice of hearing issued
on March 4, 2003,1 against Hubert Distributors, Inc. (the Re-
spondent), and a superseding compliance specification (the

1 All dates are in 2003, unless otherwise indicated.
final specification) filed by the General Counsel at the conclu-
sion of proceedings.2
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a trial in Detroit, Michigan,
on June 17 to 20, and July 22 and 23, at which all parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.
The General Counsel called Field Examiner Mark Baines,
who had the most direct involvement in the preparation of the
original backpay specification; and Greg Nowak, the Union’s
president. The General Counsel and the Union jointly called
drivers David Dennis, Tom O’Dwyer, and Jim Radulski. The
Respondent called Peter Ferguson, its chief financial officer;
employee Mike Lozano, and Mike Mrozinski, its delivery man-
ager. All parties filed helpful posthearing briefs, which I have
duly considered.
These proceedings stem from a November 8, 1996, Decision
and Order of the Board in Don Lee Distributor, Inc., 322
NLRB 470 (1996), enfd. 145 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 1998) (the
Order).3 As detailed therein, the Respondent was a member of
a multiemployer association, the Downriver, Detroit, Oakland,
Macomb Wholesalers Association, Inc. (DDOM), comprised of
beer distributors in the greater Detroit, Michigan metropolitan
area. DDOM and the Union were parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement, effective from August 17, 1987, to May
1, 1990.4 The Respondent, along with five other employer-
members of DDOM, resigned from the association and entered
into a secret pact concerning how each of them would negotiate
new, and ostensibly individual, contracts with the Union. On
February 7, 1991, these employers, including the Respondent,
unilaterally implemented offers they had made to the Union
that reflected their secret pact (the implementation).
The Board ordered the Respondent to rescind the entire Feb-
ruary 7, 1991 implementation, including but not limited to the
implementation of new classifications, and the elimination or
reduction of hourly wage rates and holiday and vacation pay.
The Respondent was further ordered to make whole all unit
employees5 for any loss of wages and benefits they suffered as
a result of the unlawful changes. There is no dispute that the
backpay period began on April 15, 1991, and ended on June 30,
1998.
Legal Parameters
Ordinarily, a statement of the applicable law logically fol-
lows findings of fact. However, here a determination of what
facts are significant must be viewed in light of the governing
legal standard for evaluating the General Counsel’s calculations
of backpay and other benefits.
The applicable legal precepts are well established. The ob-
jective in compliance proceedings is to restore, to the extent

2 GC Exh. 20.
3 GC Exhs. 1(a) & (b), respectively.
4 Jt. Exh. 1.
5 All full-time and regular part-time driver-salesmen, helpers, ware-
house employees, forklift drivers, hand loaders, reclamation employees
and breaker pile employees employed by the Respondent at its Pontiac,
Michigan facility; but excluding all other employees, professional
employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 341
feasible, the status quo ante by restoring the circumstances that
would have existed had there been no unfair labor practices.
Alaska Pulp Corp., 326 NLRB 522, 523 (1998), citing Phelps-
Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 NLRB 177, 194 (1941). In seeking
to objectively reconstruct backpay amounts as accurately as
possible, the General Counsel may properly adopt elements
from the suggested formulas of the parties. Performance Fric-
tion Corp., 335 NLRB 1117 (2001), citing Hill Transportation
Co., 102 NLRB 1015, 1020 (1953).
As the Board recognized in Alaska Pulp Corp., supra at 523,
“Determining what would have happened absent a respondent’s
unfair labor practices . . . is often problematic and inexact.
Several equally valid theories may be available, each one yield-
ing a somewhat different result. Accordingly, the General
Counsel is allowed a wide discretion in picking a formula.”
See also Moran Printing, 330 NLRB 376 at 376–377 (1999).
The Region has the burden of establishing only that the gross
backpay amounts contained in a backpay specification are a
reasonable and not arbitrary approximation. Virginia Electric
Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S. 533, 544 (1943); Performance Friction
Corp., 335 NLRB 1117 (2001); Atlantic Limousine, 328 NLRB
257, 258 (1999); Hacienda Hotel & Casino, 279 NLRB 601,
603 (1986).
Once the General Counsel has arrived at such amounts, the
burden shifts to the respondent to establish affirmative defenses
that would mitigate its backpay liability. Atlantic Limousine,
supra at 258; Hacienda Hotel & Casino, supra at 603. Any
uncertainties in the amount of backpay due should be resolved
in favor of the backpay claimant rather than the respondent,
who is responsible for the underlying unfair labor practices that
have led to the uncertainties. United Aircraft Corp., 204 NLRB
1068 (1973); Alaska Pulp Corp., supra at 522. Indeed, to hold
otherwise would effectively punish backpay claimants for the
respondent’s illegal conduct against them.
Thus, the general overriding issue here is whether calcula-
tions contained in the General Counsel’s final backpay specifi-
cation should be deemed reasonable and therefore accepted,
objections from the Respondent and the Union to certain por-
tions thereof notwithstanding. Analyzed in such context, this
case is far less complex than the multitude of documents, the 6
days of hearing, the recriminations leveled back and forth
throughout the course of proceedings, and the parties’ briefs
would suggest.
Before turning to specific areas where the Respondent or the
Union disagree with the General Counsel’s computations, I will
address the Respondent’s contention that the Region’s alleged
dilatory compliance investigation, its giving priority to other
beer distributors that were also the subject of the order, and its
otherwise poor handling of the compliance investigation,
should result in a tolling of interest as of June 1, 1999, for em-
ployees to whom it owes compensation.
Although the Supreme Court has never clearly held that es-
toppel is unavailable against the Government, it has repeatedly
shown a strong reluctance to find the Government estopped on
the same terms as private litigators. All Shores Radio Co., 286
NLRB 394, 398 (1987). For example, in Schweiker v. Hansen,
450 U.S. 785 (1981), the Court held that estoppel did not lie in
a case where an employee of the Social Security Administration
had given erroneous information, resulting in a claimant’s fail-
ure to comply with a filing requirement.
Specifically in Board proceedings, it is settled law that delay
in compliance matters by the Agency will not toll the accumu-
lation of backpay owed to discriminatees, under the principle
that they should not be penalized by the acts or omissions of the
Government. NLRB v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U.S. 258
(1969); Harding Glass Co., 337 NLRB 1116 (2002); Unitog
Rental Services, 318 NLRB 880 (1995); Carrothers Construc-
tion Co., 274 NLRB 762 (1985). As stated by the Supreme
Court in Rutter-Rex Mfg., above at 264–265, “Wronged em-
ployees are at least as much injured by the Board’s delay in
collecting their back pay as is the wrong doing employer . . .
and the Board is not required to place the consequences of its
own delay, even if inordinate, upon wronged employees to the
benefit of wrongdoing employers.”
Consistent with this principle, the Board has specifically re-
jected arguments that the doctrine of laches should be applied
to penalize discriminatees for the conduct of Regional Offices
in compliance matters. Aroostock County Regional Opthamol-
ogy Center, 332 NLRB 1616 (2001); Carrothers Construction
Co., supra; Smyth Mfg. Co., 277 NLRB 680 (1985). As the
Board stated in Aroostock County Regional Opthamology Cen-
ter, above at p. 6, “The equitable defense of laches is generally
not available in circumstances, like those presently before us,
where public policy requires the vindication of the rights of the
employees who have been the targets of an employer’s unfair
labor practices.”
The fact that the delay may be substantial does not dictate a
contrary result. For example, in Aroostock Opthamology Cen-
ter, supra, and Yorkaire, Inc., 328 NLRB 286 (1999), the Board
rejected arguments that interest on backpay should be tolled
where backpay specifications were not issued until over 3 years
after circuit court orders. And, in Harding Glass, supra, the
Board rejected the respondent’s argument that the amended
compliance specification should be dismissed because of the
delay in excess of 2 years between the date when the original
compliance specification issued and the date that the amended
compliance specification.
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that here the Region
was solely responsible for the delay in issuing the original
specification, that it was dilatory, and that it should have given
more priority to this matter vis-à-vis other distributors which
were found to have committed similar unfair labor practices,
the Respondent should receive no benefit at the expense of the
employees who suffered because of its illegal conduct.
Therefore, I find no merit whatsoever to the Respondent’s
arguments that backpay should be tolled because of the Re-
gion’s delay in issuing the backpay specifications or other al-
leged deficiencies in investigation. I need not address, there-
fore, recriminations the Respondent made against the General
Counsel and the Union, or counter-accusations leveled by the
General Counsel and the Union against the Respondent, in
terms of conduct during the compliance investigation and who
was to blame for the lengthy process and the failure of the Gen-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD342
eral Counsel to have in its possession full and complete records
in a timely fashion.6
On the subject of delay, I feel compelled to state that, while I
fully appreciate concerns that the backpay specification be as
correct as possible, it is regrettable that the discriminatees,
some of whom there is no dispute are owed tens of thousands
of dollars, will have to wait to be made whole for well over a
decade since they first suffered from the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices.
Issues
1. Whether the General Counsel erred in not accepting the
Respondent’s assertion that it is entitled to a “productivity
credit,” based on additional commissions it paid to presell driv-
ers that would not have been paid under the DDOM contract.
2. Whether the General Counsel erred in not accepting the
Respondent’s assertion that three employees classified as bulk
drivers should be treated as freight drivers and therefore not
entitled to any commissions.
3. Whether, as asserted by the Respondent, the General
Counsel improperly computed holiday pay by calculating float-
ing holiday pay at double time rate rather than straight time
rate.
4. Whether, as contended by the Union, the General Counsel
relied on insufficient documentation provided by the Respon-
dent in computing medical reimbursement costs owed to certain
discriminatees.
5. Whether, as contended by the Union, the General Counsel
improperly gave the Respondent an offset for the voluntary
payment it made to warehouse employees in November 2000.
6. Whether, as contended by the Respondent, the General
Counsel improperly apportioned the voluntary payment be-
tween principal and interest, as opposed to treating it all as
principal.
7. Whether, as contended by the Union, the General Counsel
improperly gave the Respondent an offset for workers’ com-
pensation payments made to three employees. The Union sec-
ondarily argues that the General Counsel erroneously computed
the offset amounts.
Facts
Based on the entire record, including the order, as affirmed
by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; testimony of witnesses
and my observations of their demeanor; documents; and stipu-
lations of the parties, I make the following findings of fact.
Prior to April 15, 1991, the Respondent employed employees
in the following classifications contained in the expired DDOM
agreement: drivers (driver-sold and presell), helpers (driver-
sold and presell), forklift operators, and reclamation employees.
It did not employ hand loaders, freight drivers, or local semi-
drivers. Driver-sold drivers obtained sales on their routes and
then delivered the product, whereas presell drivers delivered
product that was actually sold the previous day. The Respon-
dent had no bulk driver classification prior to April 15, 1991,
but subsequently instituted such classification at the time of the
implementation.

6 I note that over 300 employees in different classifications were in-
volved and that the backpay period was for over 7 years.
Prior to April 15, 1991, presell and driver-sold drivers re-
ceived a base pay of $8.33 an hour, plus commission, and
driver-sold helpers received $8.23 an hour, plus commission,
with commissions based on the number of cases (bottles or
cans) delivered.7 Presell drivers received $.30 per case, driver-
sold helpers $.155 per case, and presell driver helpers $.075 per
case. Drivers, but not helpers, also received a commission for
picking up empty cases. On April 15, 1991, the Respondent
eliminated the base pay rates and instead placed employees in
all these classifications wholly on commission.
Methodology Used by the General Counsel
Baines testified in detail regarding his preparation of the
compliance specification, based on records and information he
received from the Respondent and the Union. He reviewed
thousands of pages of payroll records covering 7-plus years.
He testified that because the Respondent furnished inadequate
information to determine if a helper was assigned to a presell
driver or driver-sold driver, the Region had to make certain
assumptions. Initially, based on the average earnings of 14
drivers employed during the entire backpay period, he deter-
mined that the helpers had engaged more in presell than driver-
sold activity and therefore estimated their commission as $.10
per case, weighted more heavily toward the higher presell
commission rate. However, based on additional information
provided by the Respondent shortly before the hearing, reflect-
ing there were no driver-sold helpers, the General Counsel
amended the specification to provide that helpers (for presell
drivers) should receive a commission rate of $.0075 per case.
I. PRODUCTIVITY CREDIT
The expired contract provided that presell drivers earned a
base rate of $8.33 and a commission of $.30 for each case they
delivered, regardless of whether they had a helper. The con-
tract also contained load limits on the maximum amount of
cases a presell driver could deliver in a week. These load limits
were strictly enforced, and neither the Respondent nor the em-
ployee could benefit from exceeding them.
The Respondent changed the compensation to commission
only on April 15, 1991, at which time it also eliminated the
load limit. Presell drivers were required to deliver as many
cases as the Respondent deemed appropriate. The number of
cases they delivered went up, and so did their commissions.
The Respondent claims entitlement to an offset against
backpay for a productivity credit, based on the additional com-
missions received by presell drivers vis-à-vis their commissions
before April 15, 1991. In this regard, Ferguson testified that
the presell drivers were assigned additional helpers after April
15, 1991, and therefore did not work additional hours. How-
ever, O’Dwyer, who was a presell driver between 1987 and
1994, and Dennis, who was a presell driver from 1989 until
1994, testified that they worked additional hours after April 15,
1991. Further, O’Dwyer stated there was no difference in the
frequency of his being assigned a helper before and after April
15, 1991, while Dennis was uncertain. Both O’Dwyer and
Dennis testified that the Respondent assigned them routes over

7 Jt. Exh. 1, art. V.
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 343
which they had no control, and that after April 15, 1991, they
were required to make more stops and deliver more product.
The General Counsel seeks backpay equal to $8.33 per hour
worked, arguing that presell drivers had to deliver additional
cases in an 8-hour day in order to make up for the elimination
of the hourly rate.
Analysis and Conclusions
Even if the presell drivers were not required to work addi-
tional hours after April 15, 1991, their working conditions
clearly became more onerous. Thus, on a daily basis, they had
to make more stops and deliver more product; any additional
commissions they received were based solely on their deliver-
ing more product to more customers.
In EDP Medical Computer Systems, 293 NLRB 857, 858
(1989), the Board, citing United Aircraft Corp., 204 NLRB
1068, 1073 (1973), stated, “[A] backpay claimant who chooses
to do the extra work and earn the added income made available
on [an] interim job may not be penalized by having the extra
earnings deducted from the gross backpay owed by the Re-
spondent.” See Tualatin Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 36, 44
(2000).
Here, the performance of extra work was not voluntary. The
presell drivers were required to deliver more cases to more
customers in order to earn the same amount of money they had
earned before the Respondent unlawfully implemented its new
system of compensation. To penalize them now for having had
to work harder because of the Respondent’s violations of the
Act would be to condone the Respondent’s commission of un-
fair labor practices. I categorically reject such an outcome and
conclude that the General Counsel did not act unreasonably in
determining that the Respondent is not entitled to any offset for
its so-called productivity credit.
II. BULK DRIVERS
The expired contract had no bulk driver classification.8 At
the time of the implementation, the Respondent instituted bulk
driver as a new classification. The three drivers who encum-
bered this position were compensated at a straight hourly rate
of $12 or $14 an hour, with no commissions for cases deliv-
ered. The General Counsel has concluded that the position of
bulk driver was akin to that of presell driver, thereby entitling
bulk drivers to the commissions due presell drivers. The Re-
spondent, on the other hand, contends that these bulk drivers
were more like freight drivers.
The most reliable witness on the matter of the responsibili-
ties of bulk drivers vis-à-vis presell drivers was Radulski, who
was hired as a bulk driver in April 1992 at $12 an hour with no
commissions. He became a presell driver on about June 30,
1998. He testified credibly and without controversion that as a
bulk driver and as a presell driver, he did almost everything
identically and filled out identical paperwork. Compared to
what he did as a bulk driver, the only differences in the per-
formance of his work as a presell driver are that he drives a

8 It did provide for freight drivers, who were to be paid an hourly
rate plus “appropriate commissions for full and empties, whichever is
greater.” Ibid. As earlier noted, prior to unlawful implementation, the
Respondent had no employees classified as regular freight drivers.
bigger truck, generally has smaller accounts, and handles the
product somewhat differently.
Analysis and Conclusions
Based on Radulski’s testimony and the record as a whole, I
cannot conclude that the General Counsel acted unreasonably
in determining that bulk drivers should be treated as presell
drivers in terms of the Respondent’s backpay obligations and
are entitled to commissions similarly computed. Even accept-
ing the Respondent’s argument that the bulk drivers should
have been considered freight drivers, the DDOM contract ex-
pressly provided that freight drivers receive commissions. I
conclude, therefore, that the bulk drivers should receive com-
missions as computed by the General Counsel.
III. HOLIDAY PAY
Baines testified that the language in the expired DDOM con-
tract providing for holiday pay9 was ambiguous, documentation
provided by the Respondent was inconsistent and not always
complete, and the practice in effect was not in sync with the
contractual language. Thus, while the contract provided a spe-
cial hourly rate for driver-sold drivers of $14.80 and driver-sold
helpers of $14.70, all drivers and helpers apparently received
the same rate. There was also language providing that certain
seniority employees hired before May 1, 1987, were to receive
a bonus of double pay for certain holidays. However, Baines
testified, he had difficulty determining who was eligible, and
there was no agreement on this between the Respondent and the
Union. Indeed, he testified, the Respondent and the Union
could not agree on the amounts of holiday pay other employees
should receive.
At the hearing, the General Counsel modified the backpay
due for holiday pay for certain employees, because information
provided by the Respondent indicated they were not eligible for
double pay. The Union agreed that certain employees were
credited with too much holiday pay but contended that certain
other employees were not credited with enough. However,
Baines testified that he increased holiday pay for those employ-
ees whom the Union contended were undercredited. He stated
he modified his calculations both because of the uncertainty of
the practice of the parties and because he had to convert the
Respondent’s yearly record system to the Board’s quarterly
backpay system.
The sole issue now raised by the Respondent is whether the
General Counsel erred by calculating floating holidays at dou-
ble-time rate rather than straight time rate.10 The Union does
not contest the General Counsel’s calculation of holiday pay.11
Analysis and Conclusions
As noted earlier, backpay calculations are often not suscepti-
ble to precision, and the General Counsel is required only to
calculate a reasonable backpay specification, appropriately
resolving uncertainties in favor of the backpay claimant.
Moreover, it was appropriate for the General Counsel, in at-
tempting to reconstruct as accurately as possible the holiday

9 Jt. Exh. 1, art. XII.
10 R. Br. at 5–6.
11 U. Br. at 38.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD344
pay owed to the discriminatees, to consider past practice and
the information and arguments presented by the parties.
I conclude that, objections from the Respondent notwith-
standing, the General Counsel did not act unreasonably or im-
properly in computing holiday pay figures, including floating
holidays, and that such figures should therefore be accepted.
IV. MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT
Baines testified that the documentation provided by the Re-
spondent was inadequate to make an accurate computation and
that there was no agreement between the Respondent and the
Union on this issue. At the hearing, the Respondent conceded
that it owed more money than was sought in the original com-
pliance specification. The Union, however, disputed both the
General Counsel’s and the Respondent’s calculations.
At the hearing, Baines amended the specification by using
the Respondent’s figures when they were beneficial to the em-
ployee but keeping the original figures for other employees.
The Respondent does not presently contest the Region’s com-
putation of what it owes in reimbursement of medical costs.12
With two exceptions, the Union concedes that the recalculated
amounts are supported by the Respondent’s records (R. Exh.
27).13 The Union contends that the Respondent furnished in-
adequate documentation regarding employees Brian Dryps,
Greg Ratliff, and John Thomson Jr., and failed to provide proof
that 27 employees exercised their right to opt out of medical
coverage.14
Analysis and Conclusions
The Union provided no evidence, either testimonial or
documentary, to rebut the calculations made by the General
Counsel. Ideally, specific documentation pertaining to the
employees referenced by the Union would have been provided.
However, the General Counsel attempted in dealing with the
element of medical reimbursement to arrive at reasonable fig-
ures and was satisfied with what the Respondent did provide.
In this regard, Baines used the Respondent’s figures when they
benefited employees but kept the original figures for other em-
ployees.
I cannot conclude in these circumstances that the General
Counsel acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in attempting to de-
termine, as best as possible, the medical costs reimbursement
owed to discriminatees. Therefore, I accept the General Coun-
sel’s computations in this area.
V. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT AND ITS APPORTIONMENT
The General Counsel has agreed with the Respondent that its
voluntary payments made to certain warehouse employees in
November 2000, totaling $423,922.28, should be an offset to
backpay owed.
The General Counsel divided the payment into principal and
interest that would have been due at the time the payment was
made. Thus, Baines testified that he applied the voluntary
payment using the month that it was paid as if the Board had
administered the payment process. Since interest is due and

12 R. Br. at 4.
13 U. Br. at 39.
14 Id. at 39–40.
owing on backpay owed by the Respondent, he determined that
part of the payment made in November 2000 should be interest.
He testified in detail about the methodology he used in comput-
ing the division of payment into principal and interest.
The Respondent contends that all of the amount of the volun-
tary payment should be applied as principal, none as interest.
The Respondent bases this largely on its premise that interest
should be tolled as of June 1, 1999, an argument I have re-
jected.
The Union contends that the payments were made without
approval of the Region and in noncompliance with Board
guidelines (Secs. 10635.1 and 10635.2 of the Casehandling
Manual for Compliance Proceedings). Therefore, the Union
argues, they should be properly considered nondeductible as a
form of gift.15 The Union also objects to the allocation between
interest and principal used by the General Counsel.
Analysis and Conclusions
I reject the Union’s argument that the payments should be
treated as a gift and not as deductible interim earnings. The
paramount principle in compliance proceedings is to make
employees “whole” for the unfair labor practices committed
against them, not provide them with additional financial en-
richment beyond that. Not giving the Respondent credit for the
payments it made would result in a “windfall” to employees
neither contemplated nor authorized by the Act.
As the General Counsel points out in its brief (at p. 17), even
accepting the Respondent’s position regarding tolling, there
was still considerable interest owing on backpay from April 15,
1991. In any event, I have concluded that interest on backpay
should not be tolled as of June 1, 1999, and that the Respon-
dent’s backpay obligation continued thereafter. The General
Counsel’s apportion of principal and interest from April 15,
1991, until November 2000, when the voluntary payment was
made, is eminently reasonable, and I accept it, over objections
from the Respondent and the Union that it was improperly
computed.
VI. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
The Respondent furnished evidence that three employees16
received workers’ compensation payments during the backpay
period for job-related injuries, and the General Counsel agreed
to give the Respondent credit for these payments. Although the
Union objected, it did not present any contrary evidence. It
contends, however, that the General Counsel did not correctly
calculate the workers’ compensation offsets, citing American
Mfg. Co., 167 NLRB 520 (1967).17
Analysis and Conclusions
American Mfg. Co., supra, does not set out a specific formula
for offsetting workers compensation payments. Although the
Union’s interpretation of how the offset should be calculated
may well be a permissible one, the General Counsel is free to
adopt a contrary interpretation that is not unreasonable or arbi-

15 U. Br. at 34.
16 Michael Lozano, David Nelson, and Dan Newman. See R. Exh.
36.
17 U. Br. at 29–33.
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 345
trary; in other words, its computations need only be support-
able. I cannot conclude that the General Counsel’s formulation
of the workers’ compensation offsets was impermissible and,
accordingly, I accept it.
Conclusion
For the reasons I have stated, I accept the final backpay
specification in all respects. For the sake of the over 300 dis-
criminatees, the bargaining unit as a whole, and the existing
collective-bargaining relationship between the Respondent and
the Union, I offer my hopes that compliance can be concluded
as soon as possible.
On the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended18

18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that Respondent Hubert Distributors,
Inc., Pontiac, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall pay the individuals named in the Appendix the
indicated amounts of total gross backpay and other reimburs-
able sums for the period from April 15, 1991, to June 30,
1998,19 with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), accrued to the date of pay-
ment and minus tax withholding required by law.

19 I adopt and incorporate by reference the amounts set forth in GC
Exh. 20, attached as the Appendix.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD346
APPENDIX
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
1 Abela, Michael 6499 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00
2 Abram, Clifford 3365 944.26 - - - 944.26
3 Agboka, Eric 7624 628.30 - - - 628.30
4 Akins, Roderick 8226 182.33 - - - 182.33
5 Aldrich, Richard 0249 111,431.94 19,779.71 4,996.13 2,024.38 138,232.16
6 Ali, Norris 1086 2,016.92 175.73 - 236.02 2,428.67
7 Allen, Christopher 3916 13,667.41 932.99 2,374.53 998.39 17,973.32
8 Allen, James 6285 125.38 - - - 125.38
9 Alpeters, Frank 3667 6,662.05 302.91 823.20 568.97 8,357.13
10 Alsup, Christopher 7960 62.97 - - - 62.97
11 Anderson, Thomas 4167 - - - - 0.00
12 Andrzejewski, Gerald 4756 634.36 - - - 634.36
13 Apker, Timothy 6892 606.81 - - - 606.81
14 Arthur, Steven 5302 253.65 - - - 253.65
15 Baarck, Brian 7392 116,033.80 11,650.62 8,385.17 1,910.88 137,980.47
16 Bade, Mark 0753 97,077.87 15,979.75 7,834.87 1,799.31 122,691.80
17 Baird, Jason 4081 2,735.53 - - - 2,735.53
18 Barconey, James 4344 28,250.80 2,485.08 2,037.38 835.31 33,608.57
19 Bean, Ronald 9821 863.45 - - 14.75 878.20
20 Beard, Harold 6689 172,35 - - - 172.35
21 Benner, Michael 4567 593.83 - - - 593.83
22 Bennet, James 5219 4,108.19 196.04 352.80 230.18 4,887.21
23 Bergen, Daniel 2367 1,217.60 - - - 1,217.60
24 Beyer, John 0884 63,223.62 2,270.81 2,626.58 1,162.98 69,283.99
25 Blankenbeckler, Olen 5370 81,149.75 15,044.59 4,943.61 3,148.65 104,286.60
26 Bommarito, David 3146 237.92 - - - 237.92
27 Bond, Josh 3900 250.35 - - - 250.35
28 Bowie, John 0927 29.90 - - - 29.90
29 Boyett, Bobby 0557 521.61 - - - 521.61
30 Bradfield, Mark 0178 1,151.79 - - - 1,151.79
31 Braun, Leslie 0716 24,641.85 5,691.87 4,079.56 2,544.07 36,957.35
32 Britton, Monty 4027 1,390.62 - - - 1,390.62
33 Brukwinski, Daniel 1792 63,378.68 9,540.76 5,336.75 2,253.62 80,509.81
34 Bryan, William 1364 116,280.50 18,327.62 5,389.73 - 139,997.85
35 Bubnes, Charles 7303 5,198.02 352.57 1,765.35 - 7,315.94
36 Burek, Michael 6671 748.39 - - - 748.39
37 Burl, Gerald 7041 1.40 2,871.87 6,051.21 2,015.07 10.939.55
38 Burrows, Robert 3142 - - - - 0.00
39 Burrows, Timothy 5526 44,554.42 1,196.62 2,133.30 1,371.64 49,255.98
40 Butki, Nathan 4594 42.78 - - - 42.78
41 Cadotte, James 1243 4,708.18 659.53 424.89 - 5,792.60
42 Campbell, Mark 0956 18,443.23 1,385.78 1,118.98 - 20,947.99
43 Carle, Jared 6671 900.64 - - - 900.64
44 Carrington, James 2191 19.58 - - - 19.58
45 Carter, William 9838 143.07 64.00 - - 207.07
Page 1 of 8
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 347
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
46 Cashin, William 1285 $ 1,647.22 $ 136.78 $ - $ 8.98 $ 1,792.98
47 Chatmon II, Leotis 4327 1,378.39 - - - 1,378.39
48 Chaustowich, Mark 4741 72,523.23 5,354.38 5,189.69 2,153.77 85,221.07
49 Chavez, Santiago 0316 488.04 - - - 488.04
50 Childress, Richard 7471 106,894.54 16,985.77 8,147.74 3,510.24 135,538.29
51 Cianek, Shane 4144 20,410.45 1,212.71 2,488.35 - 24,111.51
52 Clark, Anthony 4199 350.58 - - - 350.58
53 Coffey, Gary 0131 549.44 - - - 549.44
54 Cole, Eric 5608 8,549.89 648.25 1,105.20 840.34 11,143.68
55 Collias, Nick 9379 6,997.51 303.57 823.20 350.23 8,474.51
56 Contreras, Ysabel 5885 2,984.66 - - - 2,984.66
57 Cook, Gary 9161 - - - - 0.00
58 Cook, Peter 4017 30,393.58 3,629.92 2,245.27 1,117.45 37,386.22
59 Cooper, Stephen 0865 647.43 - - - 647.43
60 Cox, Paul 9673 1,102.01 - - - 1,102.01
61 Cox, Robert 1931 38.35 - - - 38.35
62 Crandall, Tracy 6823 6,139.93 2,311.32 5,029.75 796.20 14,277.20
63 Crosky, Kevin 0840 0.09 - - - 0.09
64 Cummins, Steve 0585 11.98 5,817.55 10,244.71 3,835.42 19,909.66
65 Davis, Chad 1793 12,757.61 824.82 1,955.52 44.00 15,581.95
66 Davis, Eugene 0570 250.75 - - - 250.75
67 Day, Gilbert 4777 10,267.40 651.14 570.31 273.54 11,762.39
68 Deel, Denis 5909 5,725.09 261.11 470.40 225.63 6,682.23
69 Demers, Mark 0456 0.23 6,575.19 10,144.40 2,388.87 19,108.69
70 Denham, Derek 1547 1,334.11 - - - 1,334.11
71 Denis, David 6159 92,845.06 15,469.27 8,108.08 - 116,422.41
72 Dionne, Thomas 9229 60.45 - - - 60.45
73 Dixson, Bryant 6373 53.84 - - - 53.84
74 Dixson, Kevin 6471 - - - - 0.00
75 Dorey, Gregory 6987 18,341.93 4,221.98 1,845.26 796.20 25,205.37
76 Dosch, Howard 5869 6,931.98 297.05 614.00 447.56 8,290.59
77 Dowdy, Glen 8871 42,830.12 1,803.10 2,242.96 2,128.28 49,004.46
78 Doyle, Peter 9491 831.43 - - - 831.43
79 Draper, Jon 3010 66,008.71 6,090.58 2,493.92 3,838.99 78,432.20
80 Dryps, Brian 8602 43,031.27 3,975.82 4,214.15 - 51,221.24
81 Duncan, Carter 1568 9,615.35 474.43 1,476.24 903.57 12,469.59
82 Dunne, Timothy 3906 - - - - 0.00
83 Dymon, Jeffrey 8579 1,609.32 - - - 1,609.32
84 Eady Jr., Jeremiah 2701 29,235.50 4,595.70 5,367.89 22.00 39,221.09
85 Eager, David 9499 663.67 - - - 663.67
86 Emming, Rodney 1847 - - - - 0.00
87 Englund, Robert 4738 460.20 - - - 460.20
88 Enoex, Eric 4532 - - - - 0.00
89 Eslick, William 0310 15.88 - - - 15.88
90 Ewell, Beverly 8987 - - - - 0.00
91 Fagerlie, Brent 0018 50.07 1,645.22 2,738.10 - 4,433.39
92 Fedorowych, Alex 0078 7,159.00 326.99 352.80 409.17 8,247.96
Page 2 of 8
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD348
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
93 Fern, Gerald 6837 $ 15,284.09 $ 875.95 $ 1,021.10 $ - $ 17,181.14
94 Fields, Bruce 6178 76,439.28 12,798.23 5,751.54 2,042.88 97,031.93
95 Finley, Omar 3405 - - - - 0.00
96 Fisher, James 8858 287.62 - - - 287.62
97 Flentroy, Tony 4030 562.09 - - - 562.09
98 Foster, Eric 8794 244.33 - - - 244.33
99 Fox, Bruce 0452 33.33 - - - 33.33
100 Frye, James 6193 13,689.75 1,874.86 1,849.44 85.61 17,499.66
101 Fuhr, Jason 7738 2,575.69 236.10 - 54.53 2,866.32
102 Gagel, Robert 4952 - - - - 0.00
103 Galley, Brian 5466 618.39 - - - 618.39
104 Garza, Ramon 8102 381.76 - - - 381.76
105 Gates, Donald 2597 94,340.30 12,273.97 7,637.08 408.72 114,660.07
106 Gibson, Brad 2603 - - - - 0.00
107 Girard, Aaron 5463 2,757.68 - 491.20 22.00 3,270.88
108 Gizoni, Joseph 8754 - - - - 0.00
109 Glynn, Gregory 3242 117,823.77 17,781.68 8,497.09 4,014.20 148,116.74
110 Golden, Christopher 2574 3,545.44 199.16 588.00 191.81 4,524.41
111 Gonzales, Ricardo 1900 1,515.56 - - - 1,515.56
112 Grabowski, Jon 1113 7,065.49 280.01 368.40 159.55 7,873.45
113 Grala, Jeff 0388 17,732.69 1,036.91 2,019.95 - 20,789.55
114 Granberry, Deimon 5470 35.40 - - - 35.40
115 Grant, Steven 1354 890.89 - 354.40 652.00 1,897.29
116 Grant, Wallace 4933 12,720.16 956.02 2,234.40 1,400.19 17,310.77
117 Grates, Todd 5960 1,148.80 - - 63.94 1,212.74
118 Grech III, George 7668 896.59 - - - 896.59
119 Green, Darrell 0781 292.73 - - - 292.73
120 Green, Mark 9925 477.78 - - - 477.78
121 Green, Robert 6270 8,311.58 426.17 1,058.40 338.16 10,134.31
122 Greggs, Markette 8147 162.25 - - - 162.25
123 Griffen, Patricia 2613 401.20 - - - 401.20
124 Griffore, Thomas 5960 749.78 - - - 749.78
125 Grundy, Leon 5693 434.26 - - - 434.26
126 Haddad Jr., Gerald 8705 18,754.03 993.56 3,998.40 567.00 24,312.99
127 Hall, Patricia 6841 205.47 1,030.86 533.71 - 1,770.04
128 Harden, Stephen 6880 11,672.17 512.68 2,587.20 85.00 14,857.05
129 Hart, David 8016 33.71 - - - 33.71
130 Hawley, Chad 1001 5,508.20 227.06 235.20 281.15 6,251.61
131 Heabeart, Thomas 7115 71,773.55 9,045.77 1,226.60 3,930.94 85,976.86
132 Heath, Sonny 8199 6,198.33 456.36 705.60 575.44 7,935.73
133 Helton, Steven 0587 1,506.11 - - - 1,506.11
134 Hillaker, Todd 2616 161.66 - - - 161.66
135 Hillie, Lance 2517 650.60 - - - 650.60
136 Hockstad, Terry 9091 - - - - 0.00
137 Hoh, Todd 7071 4,278.41 197.79 117.60 235.40 4,829.20
138 Holmes, Larry 1275 40.42 661.09 554.80 - 1,256.31
Page 3 of 8
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 349
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
139 Holtzberg, Troy 2110 $ 9,387.72 $ 463.93 $ 1,176.00 $ 600.54 $ 11,628.19
140 Hopkins, Andre 4671 11,344.73 736.89 1,528.80 774.64 14,385.06
141 Hopper, Trevor 3255 19.99 - - - 19.99
142 Hubbard, Thomas 6864 5,449.03 248.19 256.54 - 5,953.76
143 Hunter, John 8249 20,640.24 592.67 2,004.00 1,540.31 24,777.22
144 Isola, Christopher 4367 47,157.29 1,871.63 1,989.85 - 51,018.77
145 Jackson, Brian 1622 6,934.86 1,936.74 588.39 - 9,459.99
146 Jackson, Tracy 1318 1,012.08 - - 133.75 1,145.83
147 Jacob, Jeff 6425 30.98 - - - 30.98
148 James, Christopher 1132 349.29 - - - 349.29
149 Jasmine, Keith 1861 5,971.57 420.37 705.60 493.14 7,590.68
150 Jefferson, Hosie 9866 401.41 - - - 401.41
151 Jensen, Kristofer 3328 5,457.39 921.56 1,537.60 1,274.39 9,190.94
152 Johnson, Darrance 3016 83.34 - - - 83.34
153 Johnson, Ronald 3019 301.76 - - - 301.76
154 Jordan, Gary 4866 49,316.49 9,653.55 5,350.83 3,169.44 67,490.31
155 Judon, Michael 6201 12,474.42 530.24 655.20 - 13,659.86
156 Jurkiw, Dennis 7397 - - - - 0.00
157 Kadar, Michael 3893 1,019.29 - 39.00 - 1,058.29
158 Kasprzynski, William 9274 16,132.23 854.87 2,352.00 1,262.90 20,602.00
159 Katzman, Jeffrey 1821 14,349.45 1,359.62 2,704.80 1,403.85 19,817.72
160 Kelly, Eric 5362 2,208.97 - 117.60 62.26 2,388.83
161 Kendrick, Clarke 6488 1,977.93 192.60 - - 2,170.53
162 Kennedy, Darryl 6583 77,623.41 4,809.32 3,669.60 1,941.70 88,044.03
163 Kennedy, Jonathan 6302 477.01 - - - 477.01
164 Klee, Kirk 8263 10,023.47 418.96 859.60 350.23 11,652.26
165 Klingensmith, James 6843 4,141.90 - 699.60 82.50 4,924.00
166 Kokoszka, Christopher 1694 1,605.65 - - - 1,605.65
167 Kokoszka, Donald 2670 50,884.38 9,182.46 3,139.36 796.20 64,002.40
168 Kolich, Keith 2931 1,336.66 2,061.39 3,809.59 3,384.20 10,591.84
169 Kott, Christopher 6371 3,743.22 197.77 235.20 248.83 4,425.02
170 Kraus, Kevin 4494 24,547.44 5,030.06 3,463.02 1,304.93 34,345.45
171 Kremm, Barry 6938 77.03 - - - 77.03
172 Lamer, Dean 4272 - - - - 0.00
173 Lavalais, Michael 1353 357.69 - - - 357.69
174 Lee, Henry 6312 823.03 - - - 823.03
175 Leib, Lawrence 2472 52.81 - - - 52.81
176 Lewis, Robert 1068 21.29 - - - 21.29
177 Lewis, Thomas 5752 11,766.98 942.29 93.72 742.23 13,545.22
178 Lezell, Lee 7611 53.55 - - - 53.55
179 Litteral, Franklin 0414 19.58 - - - 19.58
180 Lottie, Thomas 9808 98,780.10 6,572.73 3,196.29 3,840.66 112,389.78
181 Lozano, Michael 0494 107,701.54 20,199.32 11,484.34 3,840.66 143,225.86
182 Lyons, Darryl 4008 125,193.35 13,754.72 8,819.23 3,840.66 151,607.96
183 Mackiewicz, John 1920 62,197.05 4,209.54 4,753.92 - 71,160.51
184 Maierle, Peter 8104 27.56 - - - 27.56
Page 4 of 8
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD350
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
185 Mannion III, William 3177 $ 547.61 $ - $ - $ - $ 547.61
186 Manns, Andre 9949 88.50 - - - 88.50
187 Manolatos, Mychal 5776 66.79 - - - 66.79
188 Marquette, Clifford 3160 2,650.37 - 443.09 - 3,093.46
189 McAnaul, Matthew 7518 - - - - 0.00
190 McBride, John 9422 1,023.55 - 51.02 - 1,074.57
191 McCaffery, Patrick 6994 3.59 - - - 3.58
192 McCain, Billy 2273 7,684.97 250.22 118.40 185.78 8,239.37
193 McCan, Michael 9365 171.44 114.56 22.91 - 308.91
194 McClain, George 0362 50.75 - - - 50.75
195 McConnell, Murl 2582 28,567.92 5,440.89 1,661.33 248.81 35,918.95
196 McCoy Jr., Buster 8242 57,355.79 5,436.14 5,238.61 1,625.21 69,655.75
197 McDonald, Chris 3392 3,497.45 208.50 117.60 145.97 3,969.52
198 McDonald, John 8971 75.05 - - - 75.05
199 McGee, Richard 3216 473.45 - - - 473.45
200 McGregor Jr., Shannon 1244 - - - - 0.00
201 McMillan, Lanitra 6059 1,095.46 - - - 1,095.46
202 Meagher, William 7263 706.35 - - - 706.35
203 Meister, Robert 4093 9,739.95 1,107.24 1,268.42 - 12,115.61
204 Michael, David 9523 1.91 - - - 1.91
205 Mihalak II, Stephen 2493 12,834.64 5,113.42 5,827.21 408.72 24,183.99
206 Miller, Donald 3971 9,767.17 397.81 614.00 246.33 11,025.31
207 Miller, Timothy 8886 1,222.63 115.53 - - 1,338.16
208 Morbach, Thomas 8705 39,678.26 2,926.56 2,337.49 - 44,942,31
209 Morgan III, Harper 2777 1,057.98 196.45 162.00 - 1,416.43
210 Moschelli, Matthew 5578 - - - - 0.00
211 Motsinger, Marshall 4406 28,725.05 1,347.91 413.72 45.93 30,532.61
212 Munroe, Ryan 1020 133.50 - - - 133.50
213 Munson, Alphonso 7381 129.68 - - - 129.68
214 Murray, William 8422 7,311.57 - 940.80 873.93 9,126.30
215 Musgraves, Maurece 6249 485.44 - - - 485.44
216 Myers, Kenneth 1603 114,026.80 18,381.88 8,680.02 3,820.20 144,908.90
217 Nelson, David 1844 38,095.78 4,509.06 2,377.03 - 44,981.87
218 Newman, Dan 8857 36,796.46 7,968.84 3,155.06 2,052.42 49,972.78
219 Nicholas, Sydney 7949 1,351.66 - - - 1,351.66
220 Nizio, Stephen 4544 22.06 - - - 22.06
221 O’Dwyer, Thomas 2917 83,817.08 14,055.04 7,376.59 2,381.66 107,630.37
222 Orr, David 8371 1,007.43 - - - 1,007.43
223 Owens, Jodi 6132 46.80 - - - 46.80
224 Palazzola, James 4158 4,854.13 329.20 371.62 - 5,554.95
225 Pangborn, Larry 5504 254.65 - - - 254.65
226 Paquette, Daniel 8486 88.44 - - - 88.44
227 Parise, Mark 0989 29,547.96 1,774.42 1,306.84 683.14 33,312.36
228 Parker, Brian 0046 4.13 1,336.09 780.61 - 2,120.83
229 Pate, Michael 3784 1,656.97 - - - 1,656.97
230 Patton, Thomas 6848 4,900.52 272.40 823.20 403.50 6,399.62
Page 5 of 8
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 351
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
231 Pelkey, Bryan 5435 $ 259.16 $ - $ - $ - $ 259.16
232 Pershing, Sean 0024 828.95 - - - 828.95
233 Pitcher, Gerald 2804 59.55 - - - 59.55
234 Pongrac, Joseph 9568 396.15 - - - 396.15
235 Powell, Anthony 2182 - - - - 0.00
236 Powers, Jeffrey 6080 21,900.86 4,724.03 5,297.19 932.41 32,854.49
237 Price, Scott 4928 11.78 - - - 11.78
238 Price, Troy 8036 1,444.95 - - 16.94 1,461.89
239 Pryor Jr., Anthony 9273 - - - - 0.00
240 Pugh, Dwight 5044 104,605.33 14,848.69 7,390.07 3,840.66 130,684.75
241 Pyszel, Jeffrey 6189 20,795.70 955.23 4,051.65 807.00 26,609.58
242 Radulski, James 9401 161,630.44 5,115.71 3,662.27 3,840.66 174,248.54
243 Ramsey, Winburn 6279 1,959.54 - - - 1,959.54
244 Ratliff, Greg 9223 28,514.88 1,153.15 2,259.11 240.00 32,167.14
245 Redd II, William 0124 114.00 - - - 114.00
246 Reid, John 3082 - - - - 0.00
247 Robinson, Tameka 1379 159.49 - - - 159.49
248 Rogers, Michael 7988 - - - - 0.00
249 Ross, Kirk 8889 30.24 - - - 30.24
250 Ruiz, Orlando 1330 31,386.58 892.31 1,973.84 - 34,252.73
251 Russell, Robert 8090 14,144.91 802.94 2,760.31 - 17,708.16
252 Ryden, Jeffrey 3483 2,870.09 205.85 123.51 - 3,199.45
253 Saje, Steven 0916 73.75 - - - 73.75
254 Sanchez, John 1465 40.85 - - - 40.85
255 Santi, Gabriel 8276 86.93 - - - 86.93
256 Scheib, Brandon 9190 5,561.75 276.02 470.40 194.08 6,502.25
257 Schumacher, Michael 5556 1,862.35 - 117.60 9.32 1,989.27
258 Scott, Devin 5460 49.75 - - - 49.75
259 Seaman, James 7734 - - - - 0.00
260 Sellers, Michael 2494 4,805.19 - - - 4,805.19
261 Shattuck, Benjamin 2869 1,761.15 - - - 1,761.15
262 Sink, Stephen 5005 315.05 - - - 315.05
263 Slabinski, Andrew 7133 31.88 - - - 31.88
264 Slater, Quentin 2212 60.94 - - - 60.94
265 Smith, Anthony 3675 122.36 - - - 122.36
266 Smith, Edward 5947 29.83 - - - 29.83
267 Smith, Keith 1478 1,240.48 - - - 1,240.48
268 Smith, Kenneth 4374 5,979.61 268.41 117.60 232.23 6,597.85
269 Smith Jr., Milton 9196 2,184.91 83.37 235.20 - 2,503.48
270 Snyder, Mark 6111 44,996.00 3,213.95 3,577.60 523.72 52,311.27
271 Spann Jr., Howard 8975 104,619.88 6,173.14 4,312.61 652.00 115,757.63
272 Spivy, Robert 7229 6.42 - - - 6.42
273 Stabile, Ben 5900 112.38 - - - 112.38
274 Stark, Dale 5483 87,943.43 8,027.39 10,394.82 3,820.20 110,185.84
275 Steverson, John 1118 - - - - 0.00
276 Steward, Joseph 1025 2,373.28 210.23 235.20 112.93 2,931.64
Page 6 of 8
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD352
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
277 Stiel, John 9284 $ 31,727.44 $ 991.65 $ 2,400.44 $ 783.33 $ 35,902.86
278 Stimage, Mark 6088 765.34 26.22 1,187.49 - 1,979.05
279 Stogdill, Bruce 6513 8,621.91 805.97 1,379.20 - 10,807.08
280 Stotts, Aaron 6850 3,590.04 172.96 235.20 56.46 4,054.66
281 Strait, Marvin 0318 3.60 - - - 3.60
282 Stransky, Trew 2554 1,349.54 - - - 1,349.54
283 Street, Patricia 6570 3,112.25 2,195.35 1,387.38 780.50 7,475.48
284 Strode, Eric 7061 130.65 - - - 130.65
285 Stuart, Steven 9623 8,513.53 445.57 1,176.00 815.61 10,950.71
286 Sturza, Dennis 4136 45,036.04 7,522.96 2,280.19 796.20 55,635.39
287 Sutter, Stephen 0395 158.46 - - - 158.46
288 Sweet, Richard 1528 633.08 - 236.80 - 869.88
289 Szeremet, Anthony 6676 14,739.12 1,010.11 2,829.81 - 18,579.04
290 Tackett, Jeffrey 2050 - - - - 0.00
291 Taylor, Eric 4447 - - - - 0.00
292 Taylor, Jermaine 4026 2,659.06 - 491.20 176.50 3,326.76
293 Teneyuque II, Richard 5671 894.99 - - - 894.99
294 Tep, Tito 9826 250.58 - - - 250.58
295 Thatcher, David 2739 30,459.21 - 1,300.80 652.00 32,412.01
296 Thomas, Daniel 0877 18,272.39 1,467.35 1,100.03 868.08 21,707.85
297 Thomas, Edward 5326 132.29 - - - 132.29
298 Thomas, Jason 1577 228.35 - - - 228.35
299 Thomason, Charles 9347 42,735.34 7,099.35 4,016.63 924.08 54,775.40
300 Thompson Jr., John 0706 - - - - 0.00
301 Thornberry, Todd 6262 770.52 126.63 - 76.56 973.71
302 Tomayko, Martin 5771 1,278.06 195.38 - - 1,473.44
303 Townsend, William 3862 78,206.74 11,844.97 5,399.18 - 95,450.89
304 Trammel, Jason 2772 - - - - 0.00
305 Travis, James 8879 40,530.85 3,925.06 5,624.45 2,443.50 52,523.86
306 Tripoli, James 4222 372.45 - - - 372.45
307 Trudeau, Terry 8386 83,974.39 14,709.74 10,155.57 3,840.66 112,680.36
308 Trumble, Robert 9757 4,020.55 193.07 705.60 63.94 4,983.16
309 Tucker, Brad 5197 5,833.92 140.83 352.80 - 6,327.55
310 Tudor, Jay 6007 1,436.65 - - - 1,436.65
311 Tulk, Wade 1410 500.17 - - - 500.17
312 Tymes, Marc 0689 512.85 - - - 512.85
313 Wagner, Rodney 0314 16.69 - - - 16.69
314 Warner, Al 1799 45,421.57 2,404.12 3,193.78 1,696.08 52,715.55
315 Warner, David 3815 576.09 - - - 576.09
316 Washington, Lavoisie 9834 1,150.83 - - - 1,150.83
317 Washington, Michael 1786 17,916.27 742.39 3,439.65 1,396.58 23,494.89
318 Watkins, Donald 9783 7,914.27 - 702.70 - 8,616.97
319 Wayne, Thomas 2766 2,839.87 195.96 470.40 201.75 3,707.98
320 Weaver Jr., Richard 0810 39.14 - - - 39.14
321 Weber II, Daniel 2133 52.36 - - - 52.36
322 Wengstrom, Brandy 0460 20,083.87 893.35 3,880.80 609.00 25,467.02
Page 7 of 8
HUBERT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 353
Hubert Distributors, Inc.
Name
Last 4
digits of
SSN
Total Net
Backpay
Total Net
Vacation Pay
Total Net
Holiday Pay
Total Net
Medical
Grand
Total
323 Wessell, Kenneth 8390 $ 167.82 $ - $ - $ - $ 167.82
324 Weston, Gerald 0709 78,080.05 9,482.01 9,062.25 3,840.66 100,464.97
325 Williams, Alvin 8153 8,889.84 392.14 1,176.00 486.00 10,943.98
326 Williams, Derrick 8783 - - - - 0.00
327 Williams, Kevin 3802 793.99 78.81 235.20 - 1,108.00
328 Williams, Nancy 8222 83.85 - - - 83.85
329 Williams, Otis 9056 - - - - 0.00
330 Williams, Terrance 5909 311.26 - - - 311.26
331 Wilson, Ben 8348 68,639.14 2,079.02 2,522.31 3,044.46 76,284.93
332 Wilson, Lonny 7674 950.69 - - - 950.69
333 Wimbrow, Dennis 8688 22,898.10 6,687.10 11,918.17 3,264.42 44,767.79
334 Wyatt, Franklin 0503 7,518.21 362.16 643.30 398.10 8,921.77
335 Yenglin Jr., Leonard 8552 12,590.72 1,421.19 3,688.26 - 17,700.17
336 Young, David 3260 21,114.36 366.89 1,569.03 1,409.00 24,459.28
337 Zale, Joseph 0689 3,802.10 184.14 235.20 159.55 4,380.99
338 Zamfir, Bruno 4432 2,164.43 - - - 2,164.43
TOTALS $4,664,603.22 $ 537,941.64 $ 421,664.14 $ 148,527.97 $5,772,736.97
Page 8 of 8